Energy
I don’t support worship of renewable energy as pollution free β½
Renewable energy consumes natural resources. It uses things that are renewable only to the extent its consumption limits the impact on the environment to sustainable levels. It can be much more polluting than fossil fuels due to the larger footprint if not properly sited.
I support strong and skeptical reviews of all renewable energy projects as they tend to be of a higher impact to local ecology and environment than fossil plants, especially per unit of energy generated. That doesn’t mean don’t build renewables but build them properly in a sustainable fashion that protects the environment and isn’t just about greenwashing.
Choosing The Right Solar Inverter Charger | Off Grid Vs Hybrid | Cost Comparison
New York Elevation Below 300ft
The other day I was curious to see how much of New York State would be underwater if the sea rose by 300 feet. While Long Island and New York City, along with towns along the Hudson River would be heavily impacted, much of the state would remain dry with 300 feet of sea rise.
Data Source: Digital Elevation Models, New York State. https://cugir.library.cornell.edu/catalog/cugir-008186
Total Energy CO2 Emissions, Monthly
Isolated Electricity Supplies – Why they are not used for everything
Climate Change Activism
One thing I really despise is climate change activists who have decided on what their ideal target for climate change would be, and that we must meet those ends, by using any means possible. You’ve certainly heard the logic, “we must limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, to ensure a livable climate and therefore must do the following…”
That’s assuming there is only definition of a livable climate, and that there should be no debate on how clear or polluted we want our environment to be. It also is a form of ends justifying the means, rather then taking into careful consideration the means and how they relate to the ends. A higher climate target such as 2 or 3 or even 5 degrees Celsius global temperature mean might be entirely realistic when we consider the costs ofΒ the most aggressive plans for climate change.
I think a better plan would be to take a look at current technology and what people desire from existing energy services like motoring, electricity, and heat, and see what improves can be made to the system in a realistic time period. We should take a hard look at the likely climate outcomes, and see if this motivates society to step up it’s game — but keep everything in context. Rather then choosing an unrealistic climate goal of 1.5 degrees for a livable climate, I think we should look at the unlivable climate we are moving towards, work to adapt society to the changing climate and take reasonable steps to promote conservation like increased fuel efficiency, more renewables.